Do mainstream parties adapt to the welfare chauvinism of populist parties?

Populist parties increasingly take a welfare chauvinistic position. They criticize mainstream parties for cutting and slashing welfare at the expense of the ‘native’ population and to the benefit of the ‘undeserving’ immigrant. Given the electoral success of populist parties, we investigate whether...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Party politics 2016-05, Vol.22 (3), p.300-312
Main Authors: Schumacher, Gijs, van Kersbergen, Kees
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Behavior
Dues and fees
Elections
Electoral College
Political parties
Populism
Quantitative analysis
Quantitative methods
Sexism
Speeches
Welfare
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Populist parties increasingly take a welfare chauvinistic position. They criticize mainstream parties for cutting and slashing welfare at the expense of the ‘native’ population and to the benefit of the ‘undeserving’ immigrant. Given the electoral success of populist parties, we investigate whether and when mainstream parties ignore, attack or accommodate welfare chauvinism. Using key theories of party behaviour, we test whether mainstream parties (1) respond immediately to populist parties, (2) respond with a time lag, or (3) respond only when they lose elections or are in opposition. Our quantitative analyses of party manifestos, speeches and policies of European mainstream and populist parties (1980–2012) show that mainstream parties adapt to populist parties on welfare chauvinism, but which parties adapt and when varies significantly. In our in-depth examinations of the Dutch and Danish cases, we highlight important cross-country and cross-party differences.
ISSN:1354-0688
1460-3683
DOI:10.1177/1354068814549345